Huh. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and W.J. Clinton were all manifestly capable of “discharg[ing] the Powers and Duties of the said Office…” And so would someone who committed treason or bribery [giving or accepting] be. Try again.
Indeed. It says “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Consider the following:
http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm
This makes sense. If high crimes and misdemeanor mean the same thing, it is a redundancy. Clearly, then misdemeanor describes a somewhat different set of circumstances - “bad behavior”. Not necessarily illegal behavior, thats already covered. Incompetence is a form of bad behavior, even though it doesn’t necessarily entail illegality, or even culpability. It isn’t George’s fault he’s not up to it. Bless his heart, he means well.
And consider
There well may be “plenty of good reasons” but you only offer one: that the process will become “politicized”. Hell, John, it can’t be otherwise, it *is * politics. Its like disparaging certain forms of surgery because they are “too medical”.
Yes, it says that he may be impeached for “misdemeanors”. If “misdemeanor” can be reasonably interpreted as suggested above, he is eminently impeachable. Which makes sense to me, as it is so hard to accept your extraordinary interpretation that the Framers intentionally left out any consideration of “competence”.
See Ford, Gerald. Above. Will there be anything else?
Since the Founders use the actual word “behaviour” wrt judges, why wouldn’t they use the same word, if that’s what they meant when referring to the president? Note that the examples given in your cite are crimes, not “incompetence”. And note that your cite discussing 3 schools of thought, none of which covers “incompetence”:
Now, Bush behavior in getting us into Iraq fits into #2 or #3. No need to concoct some new meaning to cover “incompetence”.
The cites I’ve given already clarify the difference between “high crimes” and “high misdemeanors”. I never said they meant the same thing. Clearly they do mean something different, and clearly the Founders used the word “behaviour” explicitly when that’s what they meant.
I’ve considered it. Operationally, it has to be correct. As I already said in this thread, it’s not like the SCOTUS is going to overturn an impeachment on grounds that it violated the constitution. The question is, will you get 2/3 of the Senate to agree with you. When you do, let us know.
I have others, I just didn’t list them. “Incompetence” is too vauge. Sound familiar? From your cite (emphasis added):
He’s impeachable without torturing the constitution to say something that it doesn’t.
And the House of Representatives voted to reject his argument when he made it in 1970.
Are you really putting all your faith in Gerald Ford as the purest interpreter of the Constitution? Is that really all you can come up with?
The offered quote from Gerald Ford has the support of the esteemed Constitutional scholar, Mr. John Mace, as above.
Brimming with sarcasm you asked only for anyone, as a means to belittle an argument you could not otherwise refute. I was not obligated to respond in the first instance, and certainly am not obligated to seek out someone who will withstand your scrutiny.
Sarcasm is a marvelous sauce, rather fond of it myself, but it requires substance to enhance, otherwise you’re trying to spread icing on a doughnut hole.
It’s not clear to me that Ford was making a constitutional argument in the same sense that a SCOTUS justice or constitutional scholar might. Rather, he could simply have been speaking to the reality of the situation. If Congress says “X” is an impeachable offense, who is to say otherwise (short of passing a constitutional amendment)? There is no mechanism to alter that judgement.
And while Congress did reject that notion, as you say, that holds only for that particular Congress. A different Congress could very well decide differently.
Allow me to quote exactly what Gerald Ford said in 1970 and perhaps it will make a difference in some people’s minds. Keep in mind he was talking about impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice when he said:
I think by “political” those decrying its use in impeachments here mean “partisan.” And I would stand with them on that. Those who supported “Slick Willie”'s impeachment are ill disposed to decry the proposed impeachment of “Shrub” as too partisan. But I have consistently until now been opposed to both, as partisan measures in a place that calls for judicious statesmanship.
Let me say this: IF Mr. Bush (with or without Mr. Cheney) is impeached, it should be done on grounds that he has subverted the checks and balances of the American political process through a calculated campaign of disinformation and/or a Fabian erosion of the rule of law through access to the courts. I believe that it is quite possible a case sufficient to convince the House and Senate in Congress assembled can be built on one or both of those grounds. I am not positive of the fact as yet, though I lean heavily towards it at this point.
But I have been, and continue to be, arguing in support of the proposition that “high crimes and misdemeanors” is one of the Constitution’s numerous broad phrases, like “due process of law,” “equal protection of the law,” “unlawful search and seizure,” “necessary and proper,” “full faith and credit,” and “cruel and unusual punishment” – words purposefully written broadly to enable the government of the day to apply them equitably to the situation at hand. If they had meant, “treason, bribery, willful murder with malice aforethought, kidnapping of a small child, forcible rape, armed robbery, assumption of dictatorial powers, or suspension of sitting of Congress and the courts,” then they would have said so. They had no way of knowing whether a future President might: (a) wish to fire a Cabinet member who completely disregards the President’s orders, secure in the knowledge he has friends in Congress; (b) authorize a burglary of the opposition political party headquarters in an effort to subvert the impending election; © obtain an adulterous blowjob and lie about it under oath; or (d) hold both citizens and aliens in a restricted offshore base without trial, willfully require the slanting and outright fabrication of evidence in order to persuade Congress to authorize foreign military adventures to overthrow a foreign dictator, etc. Some or all of the above have been held grounds for impeachment.
And I believe the horse is dead.
Where did I say anything about disregarding anything? Are you somehow stuck on the premise that the only source of meaning, the only valid interpretations, of the meaning of the Constitution are the proceedings of a meeting over two centuries ago? Shit, man, even *they * didn’t think they were writing Scripture, just doing their best to form a government, whose rules would need serious amending by their successors, who’d be well justified in tossing the whole thing and starting over. But you’re somehow insisting so hard that only what they said and did means anything that you quite literally can’t conceive that any other approaches even exist, much less have validity. And that is why I rarely waste even this much time with ideologues.
You don’t. Plain text is one source of meaning. The actual use of the process, the precedents that have been thereby created, are another source. One does not have to follow from the other, or from anything else. I understand that you don’t accept that concept, but again, please cease to claim you haven’t been presented with it.
What part of “historical interest” don’t you understand? :dubious:
Because judges are appointed to life terms. Impeachment is the only way to remove them, and the magnitude of the offense and/or misconduct appropriate to do so has to be lower. Voters have regular and frequent opportunities to remove elected officials, so the magnitude and immediacy of the offenses they commit and the threat they present has to be much higher for impeachment to be appropriate. But somehow I think you already understood that - perhaps from the number of times we’ve been over this subject before? :mad:
Polycarp, you’re right about the frequent misuse of the word “political” to mean “partisan” (or even, too often, “personal”). I try to use “statecraft” instead whenever possible when on this subject.
Thanks for the clarification-- that puts the quote in a very different light.
I snipped the parts where you were just ranting about things you asserted but can’t prove.
Then all that remains is to point out, again, that you already had a chance to get Bush removed from office, with all the howling about how terrible he is and how he subverted the Constitution and blah blah blah.
And he got re-elected anyways.
So now you are trying something else, namely impeaching him because he might do something in the future. Which is of course quite straightforwardly partisan and dishonest, because you couldn’t win in 2004.
And won’t work, which is why I encourage the Dems to try it. If Clinton got impeached and his approval ratings went up, then maybe it will work for Bush too.
Regards,
Shodan
As has already been pointed out to you, but without penetrating your shields, he started the war under false pretenses. Do you really think that was generally understood prior to his “accountability moment”? Did the 2004 election decision made by We the People occur with knowledge of the facts, or under false pretenses? Would we have made the same decision knowing what we should have known then (and I’m using the collective “we”; many of us knew all along, as you know)? You *must * know better than that.
But that was a nice attempt at saying there is no basis, at any time, for ever using impeachment on an elected official. That’s a refreshingly different opinion from you from what you’ve kept telling us about the last time it was tried; apparently you really can change your mind under sufficient duress and if the party affiliation of the incumbent is inconvenient.
But if you insist, I’d be happy to say their impeachments would cite Iraq, not Iran. Just as we put a murderer in prison to prevent further murders, but cite the ones he’s already committed. But you’d understand that too if you were being honest.
Of course it was with knowledge of the “facts”. You can’t seriously be suggesting that the 24/7 screams of “BUSHLIEDBUSHLIED” are a new phenomenon, can you?
And the award for Best Performance by a Doper in a Comedy Role is -
ElvisL1ves!
:lukewarn applause, mixed with annoyed expressions from other lefties whose strawmen were equally ridiculous but were issued too long ago, and the judges forgot:
I will take this as confirmation that you have abandoned your attempts at saying that the Constitution allows impeachment for theoretical future misdeeds. Progress is possible, apparently.
Oh, I understand you completely. Your posts are silly, your positions absurd, and your attempts at argumentation beneath contempt.
Honest!
Regards,
Shodan
IOW, your post is your cite. 
Oh, yeah, there’s this:
Your acceptance that we were *right * about that fact is certainly a new phenomenon.
And so is the general comprehension of it among the Bush voters.
Go back and read again, as slowly as you need to, since there does seem to be some part of “whatever Congress wants” that you’re still having trouble comprehending.
But if that’s all you have left to argue about, even in your own mind, my work here is done.
Not “new”, really. The extent of consensus, that is evolving. Used to be the minority opinion, you know. That’s a true fact, you could look it up!
The founding fathers are dead. What we have today is a policy of pre-emptive military action. It seems to me that I could make just as strong a case for pre-emptive action in the impechment of Bush and Cheney as they made for the invasion of Iraq.
Seriously, impeachment is whatever the heck congress thinks it can get away with. I doubt the country would allow congress to impeach the executive branch without serious repercussions. Right now the Democrats think their primary is tantamount to the Presidential election, as long as they feel that way, they will wait 2 years to have the access to the abusive levels of power that Republicans have had for the last few years.
A) No, not meaningless, simply constrained. The campaign to win nomination is still meaningful. And it would still take a lot of political support in Congress to successfully remove someone in any case.
B) Congress already has the power to impeach for no reason, & can, according to past behavior, apparently be expected to do so whenever the GOP is in power & a Democrat is President.
So, having set the bar so low, you change …nothing. There is no bar but the will of Congressmen to squander effort on it. If it’s worth it to them, they will do it. And as an advocate of parliamentary democracy, I think that’s a good thing.